I've noticed that many of the recent posts concerning the drama surrounding /u/she have been in clear violation of rule 2 (assuming rule 2 means that a post must include detailed information in the otherwise optional message (or description) section of the discussion.) If I am interpreting the meaning of rule 2 correctly, then many of the currently trending posts should be deleted. Am I misunderstanding the meaning of this rule or are the mods just failing (or choosing) not to enforce it? With that said; these rules seem rather vague and open to interpretation which can allow for situations like this to arise. Was /u/she correct in thinking rule 1 meant the title of a post must end with a question mark? Hard to say given the wording of the rule. I think this sub could benefit from clearer definition of these rules if we are to move past this ordeal and get back to answering people's questions. I'm tired of seeing the front page flooded with these subversive posts that lend little to the discussion of recent events but instead seem only intended to either garner or gauge peoples opinions; so much so that I've emerged from lurkerdom to try and lend a little objectiveness to the discussion. I'd hate to see my recently re-kindled love of internet discussion cut short by petty squabbling (oh the irony.) So, if this sub is going to have rules and the moderators are supposed to be enforcing these rules; then why not do that? Then again maybe I misunderstand. Any thoughts?
Edit: It would appear rule 2 applies to hypertext links, a detail I failed to notice when writing this. I will promptly slink back to my lurker's cave and focus all of my energy on growing more internet chest hairs.